Sophistry and Confusion is Integral to Romanism

Here's the type of blog post that is a direct hit on the follies of the Romanist worldview: Sophistry and Confusion is Integral to Romanism, in response to Bryan Cross. I rarely find the Romanist presuppositional issues presented with the clarity this blog post does. While the entire post is worth digesting, here are a few choice excerpts:

"It’s interesting that when a Protestant points to God’s word you call it an appeal 'to his own own personal interpretation…' but when a Roman Catholic appeals to the pope and councils you don’t portray those appeals as reflecting mere opinion of the Roman Catholic, but rather you presuppose that what is inferred by the Roman Catholic is as equally true as the doctrinal pronouncement. In other words, nothing is lost in the translation for the Roman Catholic. And when it comes to the gospel, why there is perspicuity within Rome that cannot be found in Scripture is a curious thing, especially given that Rome was to have based her gospel upon Scripture."

-Snip-

"Roman Catholics such as Bryan find themselves on the horns of an epistemological dilemma and in turn fall into a form of skepticism. By placing a mediator between God and men they render God’s living word inoperable. If their authority is Rome, then Scripture is rendered useless because any interpretation of any passage of Scripture must await adjudication for one to know what Scripture is saying. Yet when a Roman Catholic reads Scripture they demonstrate that an infallible magisterium is unnecessary to know the truth. Roman Catholics live in a tension that they cannot reconcile."